Environmental
Classifications of
Ships
Environmental project No. 1579, 2014
Title:
Authors & contributors:
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Frank Stuer-Lauridsen, Litehauz
Monikka Bergstrøm, Litehauz
Svend Boes Overgaard, Litehauz
Ditte Kristensen, Litehauz
Publisher:
Miljøstyrelsen
Strandgade 29
1401 København K
www.mst.dk
Year:
ISBN no.
2014
978-87-93178-59-5
Disclaimer:
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency will, when opportunity offers, publish reports and contributions relating to
environmental research and development projects financed via the Danish EPA. Please note that publication does not
signify that the contents of the reports necessarily reflect the views of the Danish EPA. The reports are, however,
published because the Danish EPA finds that the studies represent a valuable contribution to the debate on
environmental policy in Denmark.
May be quoted provided the source is acknowledged..
Environmental Classifications of Ships
3
Indhold
Abbreviations and glossary ........................................................................................ 6
Dansk resumé ........................................................................................................... 7
Summary in English .................................................................................................. 8
1.
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
2.
The baseline of existing regulations .................................................................. 10
2.1 MARPOL 73/78.....................................................................................................................10
2.2 Other relevant IMO conventions..........................................................................................10
3.
Environmental Ship Performance Indices.......................................................... 11
3.1 Ports and ship-owners focusing on environmental performance and differentiated
fees in ports ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 The toolbox ............................................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 The ship-owners’ perspective .................................................................................. 15
3.1.3 The perspective of ports ........................................................................................... 15
3.1.4 Additional economic incentives .............................................................................. 16
4.
Applicability of environmental ship performance indices...................................17
4.1 Measures beyond mandatory requirements ........................................................................18
4.1.1 Measures for prevention of air pollution .................................................................18
4.1.2 Measures for prevention of sea pollution ...............................................................18
4.1.3 Other indicators of pollution prevention ................................................................ 19
4.2 Principles for a possible global standard ............................................................................ 20
4.3 Recommendations for next steps ......................................................................................... 21
5.
References ........................................................................................................ 23
6.
Appendix: Selected Classification Societies and Environmental
Performance Indices ........................................................................................ 24
6.1 Registro Italiano Navale (RINA) ......................................................................................... 24
6.2 Lloyd’s Register .................................................................................................................... 24
6.3 China Classification Society ................................................................................................ 25
6.4 Det Norske Veritas (DNV) ................................................................................................... 25
6.5 Business for Social Responsibility Clean Cargo Working Group (BSR CCWG) ................ 25
6.6 Clean Shipping Index ........................................................................................................... 26
6.7 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) .................................................................................. 26
6.8 Environmental Ship Index .................................................................................................. 26
6.9 IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) .................................................................. 26
6.10 IMO’s Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan and Energy Efficiency
Operational Indicator (SEEMP) .......................................................................................... 27
4
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Environmental Classifications of Ships
5
Abbreviations and glossary
ABS
Ballast water
Bilge water
Black water
BSR CCWG
BWMC
CCS
DNV
EEDI
GHGs
GL
Grey water
GWP
HCFCs
IHM
IMO
LNG
MARPOL 73/78
MRV
NOX
ODP
ODS
PM
RINA
SCR
SECA
SEEMP
SOX
TBT
VOC
6
American Bureau of Shipping
Water carried for stability of the ship
Water that collects in the bottom of the ship often contaminated with oil
Wastewater from toilets and medical facilities
Business for Social Responsibility - Clean Cargo Working Group
Ballast Water Management Convention
China Classification Society
Det Norske Veritas
Energy Efficiency Design Index
Greenhouse gases
Germanischer Lloyd
Wastewater from showers, sink, galleys, laundry facilities etc.
Global Warming Potential
Hydro chlorofluorocarbon
Inventory of Hazardous Materials
International Maritime Organization
Liquefied Natural Gas
Maritime Pollution convention from 1973 with protocol in 1978.
Monitoring, reporting and verification
Nitrogen oxide
Ozone depleting potential
Ozone depleting substances
Particulate matter
Registro Italiano Navale (Classification society)
Selective Catalytic reduction
Sulphur Emission Control Area
Shipping Energy Efficiency Management Plan
Sulphur oxides
Tributyltin
Volatile organic carbon
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Dansk resumé
Der eksisterer en række standarder til at klassificere skibe med hensyn til deres miljø-og
klimamæssige præstationer. Dette notat vurderer deres anvendelighed og giver et forslag til et sæt
kriterier, som også kan være relevante globalt.
I det seneste årti , og især i de seneste år, er en lang række miljø- og klima
resultatvurderingsstandarder for skibe kommet frem. Nogle er meget omfattende, mens andre er
begrænset til en udvalgt gruppe af skibe, bestemte områder eller enkelte forureningskomponenter.
De fleste standarder er frivillige og drives af virksomheder eller organisationer. Nogle få er i
hænderne på statslige myndigheder, og nogle af dem er obligatoriske, f.eks. den norske NOX-afgift,
eller frivillige som Singapores Green Port program om SOX-emissioner.
En række indekser for miljø som Clean Shipping Index eller Environmental Ship Index er udviklet,
og de fleste klassifikationsselskaber tilbyder også deres kunder mulighed for at opnå forskellige
"grønne standarder", f.eks. Lloyds Register, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), China
Classification Society, Germanischer Lloyd (GL) og Det Norske Veritas (DNV). De miljømæssige
krav, der går ud over de eksisterende konventioner og regler er ofte ikke angivet med et kvantitativt
kriterium. Kravet er typisk rettet mod eksistensen af en bestemt procedure eller udstyr.
Et system, der skal kunne fungere som en global standard, skal naturligvis være egnet til skibe, der
opererer i et emissionskontrolområde, og dermed allerede opfylder strenge foranstaltninger
vedrørende svovl, og formentlig indenfor en overskuelig fremtid også nitrogenoxider. I dette projekt
er det valgt at gå ud over de eksisterende regelsæt ved f.eks. at kræve, at eksisterende skibe
overholder reglerne for nye skibe og overholder grænser for emissioner tidligere, end hvad der er
blevet vedtaget.
Den foreslåede standard består af et simpelt rangordningssystem på tre niveauer, som i vid
udstrækning er baseret på informationer, der er let tilgængelige, og for de fleste verificerbare i
skibets certifikater. Der kan være to forskellige måder at bruge dette system på: 1 ) at kræve at alle
indikatorer skal overholde et vist niveau, før fartøjet kan godkendes til dette niveau, eller 2) at
bedømme skibets klima- og miljøpræstationer ved at etablere en rangordning baseret på point. Det
første giver skarpe adskillelser mellem niveauer og det andet en flydende overgang.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
7
Summary in English
An overview of the existing mechanisms to classify ships with respect to their environmental and
climate performance is provided. This note assesses the applicability and discusses a proposal for a
set of criteria, which may also be applicable globally.
Over the last decade and in particular during the most recent years a great number of
environmental and climate performance assessment standards have emerged for ships. Some are
comprehensive, whilst others are limited to a select type of vessels or focusing on specific areas or
performance parameters. The majority of the standards are voluntary and operated by companies
or organisations. Others are in the hands of governmental authorities and some of those are
mandatory, such as the Norwegian NOX tax, or voluntary, such as Singapore’s Green Port
Programme on SOX emissions.
A number of environmental performance indices such as Clean Shipping Index and the
Environmental Ship Index have been developed and the majority of classification societies offer
their clients an opportunity to obtain various “green standards”, e.g. Lloyds Register, American
Bureaus of Shipping (ABS), China Classification Society, Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Det Norske
Veritas (DNV). The environmental requirements that go beyond the existing conventions and
regulations do not often specify a quantitative criteria, but the requirement is directed at the
existence of a certain procedure or equipment.
A performance system, which may be applied as a global standard must obviously be suited for
ships operating in an emission control area and thus already complying with stringent measures on
sulphur, and in a foreseeable future presumably nitrogen oxides as well. This study focuses on
environmental requirements that go beyond the existing conventions, for example through
demanding that existing ships comply with the rules for new ships or to implement limits of
emissions earlier than what is planned.
The proposed standard consists of a simple three level ranking system, largely based on information
readily available and for the most part verifiable in the ship’s certificates. Two different ways of
using this system are possible: 1) One way is to claim that all indicators have to comply with a
certain level in order for the vessel to be certified for that level; 2) Another way is to rate the vessels’
climate and environmental performance under the same system by a ranking score. The first option
gives very stringent classes, and the second a more flexible transition between levels.
8
Environmental Classifications of Ships
1. Introduction
This note provides an overview of the existing systems of classification of ships with respect to their
environmental and climate performance. An assessment of their applicability is given and a
proposal is advanced for a suitable set of criteria, which will also be applicable globally.
Over the last decade and in particular during the most recent years a great number of
environmental and climate performance assessment standards have emerged for ships (for the
purpose of this note termed “environmental ship performance indices”. Some are ubiquitous and
quite comprehensive, while others are limited to a selected group of vessels or focusing on specific
areas or performance parameters. The majority of the standards are voluntary and operated by
companies or organisations. A few are in the hands of governmental authorities where some of
those are mandatory, such as the Norwegian NOX (nitrogen oxides) tax, or voluntary, such as
Singapore’s Green Port Programme on SOX (sulphur oxides) emissions. This study has its focus on
environmental requirements that go beyond the existing conventions. However, it should be noted
that many of the additional requirements in the available standards do not specify a quantitative
value to aim for, but instead the approach can be procedural, e.g. relating to the existence of a
garbage management plan, or the requirement can be “to do” or “not to do”, e.g. no garbage
overboard. It is emphasized that this note does not claim to be an exhaustive assessment of all
available systems; the aim is to identify standards with general applicability regarding type of
vessel, geographical area, and the range of pollutants included. Based on the assessed classification
systems a proposal for a suitable Danish standard is given. This standard is created in such a
manner that it will also be applicable globally in the long run.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
9
2. The baseline of existing
regulations
2.1
MARPOL 73/78
The member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have over the years agreed to
articles, protocols, annexes and unified interpretations of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), originally from 1973 and modified by the Protocol
of 1978, in short form MARPOL 73/78.The six Annexes cover following areas:
Annex I:
Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil.
Annex II: Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk.
Annex III: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by
sea in packaged form.
Annex IV: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.
Annex V: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships.
Annex VI: Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships.
There are a significant number of specific provisions relating to the area of applicability (e.g. within
or outside of 12 nm offshore, in special areas, in ports etc.) and to the timing of the implementation
as governed e.g. by the ship’s year of built and size class.
2.2
Other relevant IMO conventions
There are other important conventions governing environmental issues including the International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, the IMO Ballast Water
management Convention (BWMC), the Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally
Sound Recycling of Ships and the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness,
Response and Co-operation including its Protocol on hazardous and noxious substances. These
conventions are in general applicable to all ships above a certain tonnage except for the BWMC,
which has a complicated schedule of implementation related to the vessel’s year of construction and
ballast water capacity. Neither the BWMC nor the Hong Kong Convention has entered into force as
of June 2013.
10
Environmental Classifications of Ships
3. Environmental Ship
Performance Indices
It is the maritime authorities or the classification societies on their behalf that survey and certify
that ships comply with regulations. It is also the classification societies and in some cases other
third parties, who certify that ships meet the environmental ship performance indices, also where
the standards go further than the current regulation with even stricter requirements. Many of these
environmental ship performance indices are operated by the classification societies and are
applicable to ships across types or categories. 1
Some standards are delimited by pollutant or geographical area of applicability and others have
been developed only to e.g. tankers and container vessels, such as the Green Award and the
Environmental Performance Survey of Business for Social Responsibility Clean Cargo Working
Group (BSR CCWG). The Green Award certification scheme is a voluntary option open to oil
tankers, chemical tankers and dry bulk carriers from 20.000 DWT and upward, as well as liquefied
natural gas (LNG) carriers and inland navigation vessels. There are 38 certificate holders World
wide (from 16 nations), hereunder e.g. Maersk Tankers (Denmark), Knutsen OAS Shipping
(Norway), NYK LNG Shipmanagement Ltd (Japan), MOL LNG Transport - Europe (United
Kingdom) and Kuwait Oil Tanker Co. S.A.K. (Kuwait).
The BSR CCWG was developed as a global business-to-business initiative for leading cargo carriers
and their customers dedicated to environmental performance improvement in maritime container
transport. The BSR CCWG has a number of shipowners as members (>20) hereunder e.g. A.P.
Moller Maersk, APL, CMA CGM, MOL and NYK LINE. Non-shipping company members, who have
an environmental standard for transport of cargo, include e.g. DONG Energy, Novo Nordisk,
Novozymes, NIKE, IKEA Services and Wal-Mart Stores.
Another widespread industry standard with applicability limited to a specified ship type is the
Tanker Management Self Assessment scheme used in the crude oil trade, which was developed by
the Oil Companies International Marine Forum. The majority of major tanker operators apply
TMSA and the success of this standard is due to the requirement of the shippers (the oil majors)
that only vessels adhering to this programme and vetted accordingly may transport their cargo.
Most members of the International Association of Classification Societies have developed “green
notations”, of which the most comprehensive ones are presented here. The classification societies
Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), China Classification Society, DNV, ABS and Lloyd’s Register
EMEA have integrated the performance system with additional climate and environmental
requirements for obtaining a “green” certificate. Table 1 provides an overview of some of the
existing standards. The term “all inclusive environmental ship performance indices” are applicable
to all vessels, all geographical areas and covers a broad range of pollutants while “delimited
standards” concerns certain types of vessels, specific geographical areas or a limited range of
pollutants. The requirements of some of the environmental ship performance indices that go
It is emphasised that a number of other formal or informal indices for ships are available such as the Danish Ecocouncil or ”Der
Blaue Engel: Umweltschonender Schiffsbetrieb”, but it was chosen to focus on systems already operated in shipping.
1
Environmental Classifications of Ships
11
beyond the MARPOL 73/78 and other environmental conventions are specified in details in
Appendix 1.
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SHIP PERFORMANCE INDICES AND THEIR DELIMITATIONS.
All inclusive
Environmental Ship
Performance Indices
Delimited standards
All vessels, pollutants, areas
Vessel type
Pollutants
Area
“Green” notations by LR, DNV,
GL, RINA, ABS etc.
Clean Shipping Index (CSI)
Environmental Ship Index
(ESI)
BSR CCWG
Green Award
TMSA
EEDI
NOX tax
Ports standards
(typically SOX)
Emission Control
Areas
Antarctica Treaty
Ports standards
*LR: Loyd’s Register, DNV: Det Norske Veritas, GL: Germanischer Lloyd, RINA: Registro Italiano Navale, ABS: American
Bureaus of Shipping, CSI: Clean Shipping Index, ESI: Environmental Ship Index, TMSA: Tanker Management Self Assessment,
EEDI: Energy Efficiency Design Index
Going beyond the regulatory requirements and voluntarily invoke more stringent standards may be
due to one or more of the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
The shipping company has a “first mover” policy on additional stricter regulations in
preparation of future demands.
The shipping company and its ships with a “green” certificate can gain access to transport
buyers (shippers) that require the carrier to take environmental issues into account.
Obviously, economic incentives such as the saving on fuel or locally reduced port fees may
exist as well.
Different environmental performance indices such as Clean Shipping Index and the Environmental
Ship Index have been developed, making it possible for ships to obtain a “green” ranking. In
principle, this makes it transparent for transport buyers when comparing vessels although the
requirement of continuous improvement does present challenges for the ranking and comparison of
ships. The mentioned indices are based on calculations concerning reductions of CO2, NOX and SOX,
and how water and chemicals are managed. Water in this context includes black water (sewage),
grey water (bilge water) and ballast water, and chemicals refer to antifouling paints, cleaning
agents, stern tube oils, etc. Table 2 provides an overview of what pollution parameters the different
environmental ship performance indices touch upon.
Other notable standards:


The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), mandatory for new ships
Shipping Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), mandatory existing and new
ships
IMO has developed the EEDI as a technical measure to successively improve a new ship’s efficiency
and thereby a reduction in CO2 emission. The index indicates the specific CO2 emission per cargo
capacity and distance sailed. The SEEMP and its company counterpart the Company Energy
Efficiency Plan are meant to act as guides for developing ship specific initiatives to improve energy
efficiency with one of the potential measures, e.g. the Energy Efficiency Operation Index. There are
five major components of both SEEMP and Company Energy Efficiency Management Plan, which
are: 1. Planning 2. Implementation 3. Monitoring 4. Self-evaluation 5. Improvement. The Company
Energy Efficiency Management Plan is a broader management plan than SEEMP, incorporating all
12
Environmental Classifications of Ships
environmental measures of energy efficiency through the supply chain, including onshore and
offshore suppliers and subcontractors.
In June 2013 the European Commission set out a strategy to integrate maritime emissions into the
EU’s policy in June 2013. The first step of the strategy is a legislative proposal to establish a EU
system for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of CO2 emissions from large ships on
voyages to, from and between European ports. There is some debate on how the system should be
implemented, but it is expected that the MRV system will apply to shipping activities carried out
from 1 January 2018 (European Commission, 2013; Danmarks Rederiforening, 2013).
TABLE 2: OVERVIEW OF MAIN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SHIP PERFORMANCE INDICES AND THE
POLLUTION PARAMETERS INCLUDED.
Organisation
Pollution
parameter
RINA
Green
Plus
CSI
LR
ABS
CCS
GL
BSR
CCWG
DNV
CO2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
SOX
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NOX
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
PM2
+
+
Air pollution
VOC3
+
+
+
+
+
+
ODS4
+
+
+
+
+
GWP5 substances
+
+
+
+
+
Cold Ironing
+
+
Incinerators
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Sea pollution
Black water
+
Grey water
+
Bilge water
+
+
+
+
Ballast water
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Sea discharge: NLS6
+
+
+
+
+
PM: Particulate matter
VOC: Volatile Organic Carbon
4 ODS: Ozone Depleting Substances
5 GWP: Global Warming Potential
6 NLS: Noxious Liquid Substances
2
3
Environmental Classifications of Ships
13
Organisation
Pollution
parameter
Harmful substances in
packed form
RINA
Green
Plus
CSI
LR
ABS
+
CCS
GL
BSR
CCWG
DNV
+
Operational pollution
by oil
+
+
Accidental oil pollution
+
+
Sludge oil handling
+
Garbage
+
Non-toxic anti-fouling
paints
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Other measures
Scrapping policy
+
Crew awareness
+
+
+
Ship
design/construction
+
Fuel oil changeover7
Noise and vibration
+
+
+
SEEMP8
+
+
Company Energy
Efficiency Management
Plan
Env. manager on board
to prevent poll.
+
+
+
+
EMS9
+
+
+
+
* RINA: Registro Italiano Navale, CSI: Clean Shipping Index, LR: Loyd’s Register, ABS: American Bureaus of Shipping, CCS:
China Classification Society, GL: Germanischer Lloyd, BSR CCWG: Business for Social Responsibility Clean Cargo Working
Group, DNV: Det Norske Veritas.
3.1
Ports and ship-owners focusing on environmental performance and
differentiated fees in ports
3.1.1 The toolbox
One way of hastening the environmental performance of ships could be introduction of
differentiated fees in ports. Ships with high environmental standards could foresee reduced ports
fees, whereas ships with low environmental standards could foresee increased fees. The fees would
have to be based on a number of accessible parameters and always on average values for the specific
vessels, not on actual performance. Models like the Environmental Ship Index or Clean Shipping
Fuel changeover to Low Sulphur Fuel
SEEMP: Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
9 EMS: Environmental Management System
7
8
14
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Index could be used by ports and are in fact already applied in some.10 In these models,
environmental and climate performance are displayed in an easy accessible way. The ports can in
this way decide whether the vessels are performing above or under a certain standard, and adjust
the fees in accordance with this. It should be noted that the national industry association Danish
Ports is not in a position to accept a mandatory system, which impose a differentiated fee based on
environmental performance, as their members are independent ports with free price mechanisms.
3.1.2 The ship-owners’ perspective
A crucial element is whether the ship-owners will be interested in taking part in such a
system/classification. Based on findings regarding the earlier mentioned toolboxes, it seems that at
a number of lo/lo operators are currently taking part in this.
The Danish Ship-owners Association do see a number of possibilities, but on the other hand, they
express some reluctance with respect to introducing such measures. A high degree of transparency
regarding the performance of the system is requested, in order to keep the competitive balance
between partners.
On the other hand, the ship-owners find themselves in a rather critical position due to the
introduction of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) in a number of waters from 1 January
2015. The requirements of using low sulphur fuels or alternatively the introduction of technologies11
which can offset the negative impact connected with the use of high sulphur fuel on the
environment, will play an important role in the in the next 15 months or so.
Initiatives carried out at sea and in ports reducing emissions but possibly also reducing costs at sea
and in ports will surely be in focus. Based on the findings in the report from Trafikanalys 12, the
majority of ships in the Baltic Sulphur Emission Control Areas will switch to low sulphur fuel in
2015. This will result in an increase in actual cost with up to 64%13, which will possibly lead to
initiatives switching to other fuel types or installation of scrubbers. Such changes will have a
positive impact on the emissions, both at sea and in ports. Regulation of port fees based on
emission standards should therefore reflect these possible changes.
3.1.3 The perspective of ports
The Danish ports have different opinions on performance based differentiation of port fees and the
ports and their organisation see both challenges and possibilities in introducing such a system.
However, some disagreement exists with respect to whether the system should be compulsory for
all ports (coordinated by the EU or IMO) and in which way it is to be controlled.
In contrast to this, Sweden has introduced a compulsory system as a part of their navigational fee
system (Farledsavgift). The system is controlled and managed by the Swedish Authorities
(http://www.sjofartsverket.se/sv/Om-oss/Ekonomi).14 The system brings around the necessary
information concerning each vessel, based on information from classification societies. Onsite
inspections are therefore not part of the concept.
In Denmark a central system containing emission data for vessels does not exist making it more
difficult to introduce such systems, without carrying out onsite inspections onboard the vessels. As
part of the Clean Baltic Sea Shipping concept 15 initiatives applying schemes for environmentally
differentiated port fees were investigated in a number of Swedish ports and their suggestion were to
include emissions of NOX, particulate matter (PM) noise and chemicals in a system.
In general, the reduction of port fees in Swedish ports is based on reduced emissions of NOX and
SOX. The rebate is given based on the installation of e.g. scrubbers or SCR catalyst converters. Ships
using LNG will also obtain a discount. As an example to this, one can look into the discounts given
www.cleanshippingindex.com, http.//esi.wpci.nl
Scrubbers as the most likely alternative.
12 Trafikanalys: Konsekevnserna av skärpta krav for svavelhalten i maritimt bränsle- delredovisng , Juli 2013.
13 Trafikanalys p 42.
14 It should be noted, that this system only have focus on emissions to air.
15 Cleanship Task 4.6.
10
11
Environmental Classifications of Ships
15
by Port of Stockholm.16 The sulphur rebate is up to 0.20 Sek/GT, when the sulphur content is less
than 0.2 %. The nitric oxide rebate is 0.30 Sek/GT, when the content is less than 1 g/kWh. These
values are listed in the official records17 and are therefore directly applicable to the ship when it calls
at the port. No additional control is necessary.
Port of Gothenburg has introduced an even more comprehensive system. The system is based on an
additional fee for ships using bunker with a sulphur content exceeding 0.5% in combination with a
reduction for vessels using bunker with a sulphur content less than 0.1%. On an annual basis, this
shifts around 1 million. EUR between the two categories of vessels, and it has reduced the emissions
of SOX with approximately 100 tons in the Gothenburg area.18 When SECAs is implemented in
2015, this system will be redundant, and new measures will have to be introduced.
3.1.4 Additional economic incentives
When looking at more incentives to reduce the emissions from ships, one could point to the use of
power supply from land, soot particulate filters and similar measures. The EU funded project “Clean
Air in Ports”19 focus on a broad diversity of possibilities focusing on cleaning the air in the
commercial ports. Although not yet actually on the agenda the treatment of ballast water is clearly
an issue here as well, both with regards to the discharge directly to water and the increased use of
energy and fuel whilst at berth.
However, even though many studies on emission reduction take place in the ports, it seems that
most ports are currently awaiting the effects of the SECAs as well as the reactions from the shipowners. Under the coming regulations ships operating in a SECA will already meet a 0.1% sulphur
criterion. If the intention in a port is to voluntarily reduce even further and significantly beyond
0.1% sulphur cost related incentives may still be part of the port dues packages.
www.stockholmshamnar.se.
Via Farledsavgiften.
18 Göteborgs hamn: Stöd till miljösatsande rederier. 2013.
19 NABU: Clean Air in Ports. 2012 and ongoing.
16
17
16
Environmental Classifications of Ships
4. Applicability of
environmental ship
performance indices
The classification systems available regarding ship’s opportunities for environmental improvements
beyond the regulations are often not directed at incremental improvements, but frequently utilize
yes/no answers to assess the improved performance. This may include the existence of a company
policy on a certain area with no actual assessment of a measurable performance indicator. In the
following, focus is directed towards the incremental and quantitative indicators.
The implementation of pollution reduction is often governed by restrictions, which become effective
at a certain date and in some cases for certain areas (ports, emission control areas etc.). Going
beyond existing regulation may thus be done by constructing incremental improvements where the
implementation dates are pushed forward and the rules only concerning specific areas are made
effective in other areas. An incremental system makes it possible for all ships to make a difference
even though their current stage of environmental performance is poor. An advantage is that for
many of the pollution parameters the “values” or indicator levels, which may be used for an
incremental standard, are already agreed amongst IMO members. In general, the environmental
ship performance indices offered from classification societies rate or rank the vessel in a
quantitative manner. A tool as the Clean Shipping Index is developed to all vessel types, but it
should be noticed that the vessel score should not be compared across vessel types. The Clean
Shipping Index system seems to be a reasonable tool to distinguish between vessels both for
rewarding taxes and as help for transport buyers to choose company. BSR CCWG also provides a
score but is only developed for container vessels. The use of a multi-indicator system for more than
one matrix (air, water and chemicals), such as the Clean Shipping Index and Environmental Ship
Index, does represent a complication with respect to the “value” associated with each indicator, as
opposed to systems known from other sectors with relatively few indicators solely related to
emissions to air. The indicators and their susceptibility to quantification will be assessed, since the
use of an environmental ship performance index should be surveyed and certifiable.
It should be mentioned that several classification societies and other third parties are working on
concepts for zero emission vessels. An example is the classification society GL, which is currently
working on a zero emission technology based on hydrogen fuel cells. This means that no CO2, NOX,
SOX and very limited noise emissions will take place. This technology has been used since 2008 by a
passenger ship “FCS Alsterwasser” in the river Alster in Hamburg’s city in Germany (GL Group,
2008). However, the energy requirement of larger ferries, tugboats and port authority vessels is still
too high and the use of fuel cells in marine navigation is mainly limited to auxiliary functions. The
development of zero emission vessels may challenge the technologies and bring forward innovative
solutions but are not included in the environmental ship performance index in this study. The
technologies developed for the zero emission vessels will prevent air pollution, but still the
environmental impacts from scrapping together with sea pollution from ballast water, sewage,
garbage and chemicals should be managed.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
17
4.1
Measures beyond mandatory requirements
As already mentioned, this study has its focus on environmental requirements that go beyond the
existing conventions. In the following additional measures regarding prevention of air pollution and
sea pollution will be described together with technical methods that may be used to achieve the
targets.
4.1.1
Measures for prevention of air pollution
For prevention of air pollution, the environmental performance indices suggest different
mechanisms or technologies to reduce the emissions and they set quantitative goals for obtaining a
“green” notification or certification. A summary of the quantitative criteria is given below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOX emissions should not exceed 0.5% and in SECAs not more than 0.1%
NOX emissions should be in compliance with Tier II or III depending on vessel age
Refrigerant substances should have a global warming potential (GWP) < 1650 and an
Ozone depleting potential (ODP) equal to zero. The monthly leakage should be under 3%.
Substances used for fire fighting should have a GWP<1650 and ODP=0
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (CFCs and HCFCs) are prohibited
The technical methods listed below are included in the environmental ship performance indices and
may be used to meet the listed quantitative targets:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Gas to liquids providing higher energy content than diesel
Blending fossil fuel with second-generation bio-fuels reducing CO2 footprint
Dual-fuel engines running with Liquefied Natural Gas
Fossil fuel pre-treatment (e.g. water emulsions)
Modification in prime movers
Use of non-fossil fuels (e.g. sails, fuel cells, etc.)
“Gas to liquids” is a fuel type where natural gas has been converted to a liquid using a
hydrocracking catalyst. It has higher energy content than diesel and therefore reduces the CO2
emissions. Furthermore it reduces SOX, NOX and PM emissions. By blending fossil fuel with biofuels, the SOX emission will also be reduced, but only second-generation bio-fuels are
recommended. Another aspect is the CO2 reduction potential, which will depend on the bio-fuel
source, since not all biofuels necessarily have a net CO2 benefit. The dual-fuel engines running with
LNG and a small amount of fuel oil allow the ship to select the best option to meet local
requirements regarding CO2, SOX, NOX and PM emissions. Pre-engine or In-engine treatment with
water to comply with Tier II requirements will reduce the NOX emissions and the PM formation. To
further reduce PM emissions, e.g. engine modifications and the common rail technology are in play.
Other measures that will impact the air emissions are the restrictions in the use of GWP substances,
shore based electricity, and supporting tools to assist the captain in keeping the most efficient
sailing draft and trim. It should be emphasised that the chosen technology should not cause a
significant rise in emissions of other pollutants or greenhouse gases (GHGs). This study has not
included emissions of noise to air (or water). These issues have been on the agenda in the IMO, in
particular related to protection of seafarers onboard and marine life in the sea. However, noise
associated with ships in ports is an issue addressed frequently in a local and national settings or e.g.
in the EU, but currently a lack of suitable and internationally recognised standards do not allow for
inclusion in the present study.
4.1.2
Measures for prevention of sea pollution
For prevention of sea pollution no quantitative targets have been set, which complicates the actual
improvements for the ships when a measure is taken into force. However, the measures should not
be undervalued. In the following, items contributing to sea pollution are listed and the technologies
18
Environmental Classifications of Ships
and suggestions to prevent the pollution are mentioned. Following measures for prevention of sea
pollution are included in several of the environmental ship performance indices and are suggested
for a common standard:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Black water:
a. Advanced treatment plant on board as per Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Title XIV (33 CFR Part 159 Subpart E)20
b. Holding tank, high level alarms located at manned positions and sewage
discharge recording book
Grey water:
a. Advanced treatment plant on board as per Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Title XIV (33 CFR Part 159 Subpart E)
b. Holding tank and grey water record book
Bilge water:
a. Bilge holding tank with facilities for delivery ashore
b. High level alarms located at manned positions and automatic stopping device
when oil content exceeds 5ppm
c. Labels/colour codes in order to identify the different piping systems
d. Biodegradable and low aquatic toxicity lube oil
Ballast water:
a. Ballast Water Management system in accordance with resolution MEPC.174 (58)
b. Ballast water exchange in mid-ocean
Garbage:
a. Management Plan for hazardous wastes: lamp bulbs, batteries, printer cartridges
etc.
b. Separation into following categories: recyclables, non-recyclables, food waste,
hazardous waste.
c. Recycling of plastic, aluminium, glass, paper-cardboard
Antifouling:
a. The hull antifouling paint should be without organotin compounds, i.e. existing
tributyltin (TBT) containing paint not just coated.
It should be noticed that in cases where the selected five classifications societies have different
restrictions for the same item, the strictest measure has been recorded in the list above.
4.1.3
Other indicators of pollution prevention
Scrapping of vessels is another issue raised in the environmental ship performance indices and is
linked to the policies on the identification, labelling and removal of hazardous materials on board
during operation or on the final voyage. The actual environmental benefit is difficult to assess
during the operational phase of the vessel, but this issue is typically included in the environmental
ship performance indices. In some cases, awareness training and other programs to engage the crew
in the environmental and climate performance are also awarded points or benefits in the “green”
notations.
In order to develop a suitable global standard, a shortlist of measures beyond existing regulation is
presented in Table 3 including the most important performance indicators regarding prevention of
air and sea pollution and concerning scrapping and awareness building.
20
This US regulation sets discharge standards for sewage and grey water from large cruise ships operating in the Alaska waters.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
19
TABLE 3: SHORTLISTED MEASURES BEYOND EXISTING REGULATION.
Air pollution
CO2
EEDI: Phase 1, 2 and 3 reduction factors
NOX
Tier II and Tier III for existing vessels (depending on vessel age)
SOX
<0.5% and in SECAs <0.1% S
Ozone depleting
substances
Not allowed (also HCFCs)
Global Warming
Potential
Global Warming Potential <1,650 and have a leakage under 3% per year.
VOC/PM21
Only for tankers: Vapour control systems
Green house gases
No further specific regulation, follows EEDI and SEEMP (Energy Efficiency
Operation Index) for CO2
Shipboard
incineration
Not allowed
Sea pollution
Black water
No discharge in certain areas and sewage treatment plant on board
Grey water
Advanced treatment plant installed
Bilge water
Biodegradable and low aquatic toxicity lube oil
Ballast water
Mid-ocean exchange, BWM system installed
Garbage
Management Plan for hazardous materials and recycling wastes
Antifouling
Paint without biocidal compounds, such as organotin
Other
Scrapping policy
Inventory of Hazardous Materials onboard; policy on scrapping at approved
non-beaching facilities
Crew awareness
Documented education in environmental policy, targets and procedures.
4.2
Principles for a possible global standard
Based on the assessed environmental ship performance indices, a proposal for a possible future
global standard, which is also applicable in Denmark, is developed (Table 4). A performance system
applicable in Denmark must obviously be suited for ships operating in an Emission Control Area
and thus already complying with stringent measures on sulphur, and presumably nitrogen oxides as
well, in a foreseeable future. A way to go beyond the existing regulation is to demand that existing
ships comply with the rules for new ships and to implement limits of emissions earlier than what
has been enacted. The proposed standard consists of a simple three level ranking system largely
based on information readily available, and for the most part verifiable in the ship’s certificates
(Table 4). Two different ways of using this system are possible:
21
VOC: Volatile organic carbon. PM: Particulate matter
20
Environmental Classifications of Ships
One way is to claim that all indicators have to comply with a certain level in order for the vessel to
be certified for that level. If all indicators meet the requirements for e.g. level 3, except from one
indicator only complying with level 2, the ship can only be certified for level 2. Hence, a modern
vessel that meets all air emission and water management indicators but not yet has an inventory of
hazardous (IHM) materials will not benefit from lower port fees or relaxation of other levies, since it
only complies with level 1. In order to comply with level 3 the ship has to achieve zero emission or
discharge, except from CO2. The disadvantage of this way of ranking is that the ship owners will not
be encouraged to bring up few parameters to level 3, if the rest are only complying with level 2.
The other way to rate the vessels’ climate and environmental performance is by a ranking score. A
system that does allow for a more continuous rating like this is the Clean Shipping Index. In this
study all indicators at each level are treated equally and the ship obtains a total score by adding the
points obtained. All parameters complying with level 1 are given 1 point, parameters complying with
level 2 are given 3 points, and parameters complying level 3 are given 5 points. This system is not as
sensitive to one specific pollutant parameter not complying with a certain level as it provides a total
ranking score for the vessel. If ship owners find it easier to reduce some pollutants rather than
others, this way of ranking will ensure that they do their best to achieve most points for all
parameters. It will still be beneficial for the ship owner to improve the reduction of one pollutant in
order to comply with level 3, even though all other parameters only comply with level 2.
In the present study care was taken only to include standards that were already presented in the
regulative context, be it for other ships, other areas or with a future implementation date. However,
the voluntarily applied environmental standards will in some cases eventually have to be complied
with for the vessels, e.g. after a voluntary early implementation of D-2 ballast water management
for small and large ballast tank capacity ships (<1,500 or >5,000 m3), and the points awarded will
be forfeited once regulation applies. In other cases, such as the NOX regulation older ships are
permanently exempted and may retain points for voluntary applying stricter standards. Once a
vessel must comply with the strictest regulations it cannot under the current proposal for standards
earn additional points. Obviously, there are options for including even stricter future standards and
such standards are discussed and some even applied locally.
4.3
Recommendations for next steps
The introduction of a performance standard applicable internationally and in Denmark may not be
a simple feat. A voluntary system is always driven by the motivation and incentives of the
participants and challenged if not considered fair, i.e. while it is fine to award those participating
over those not, it is not conducive to appreciation if certain trades, ship types or abatement
mechanisms receive unfair benefits. Since the current proposal is based on collecting existing
indices without assessing further their application in the Danish shipping industry it is
recommended to consider the following:






Provide an assessment of the contribution of such a voluntary environmental standard for
ships on Danish policy goals, particularly for the transport sector, and the possible
contribution of a global standard to reductions of emissions from global shipping.
Provide a measure of the impact on ships in the Danish Registry (Dansk Skibsregister) and
in Danish International Ship Register (DIS).
Analyse the consequences of continuously raising the bar as new regulations are
implemented for larger areas, other ship types and/or newer ships.
Propose additional top end standards for vessels that already comply with the strictest
regulations, e.g. various “zero emission” designs.
Improve on the awareness on sustainable transport and the availability of green standards.
Propose a sustainable funding mechanism including vetting and administration, and
assess the cost profile and consequences for ports, if environmentally differentiated fees
are implemented via ports.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
21
TABLE 4: PROPOSAL FOR AN APPLICABLE DANISH STANDARD.
Pollutant
parameter
Level 1
(1 point)
Level 2
(3 points)
Level 3
(5 points)
Certifiable
CO2
New ships/
Existing ships
Reduction 20% /
Reduction 10%
Reduction 30% /
Reduction 20%
Reduction >30%
/ Reduction 30%
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
SOX
0.5% outside
Emission Control
Area
0.1% outside
Emission
Control Area
No emission
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
NOX22
>Tier II*/Tier II
Tier III/Tier III
No emission
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
ODS/ODP23
No use /ODP = 0
No use /ODP = 0
No use /ODP = 0
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
PM24
0.4 g/kWh
0.15 g/kWh
0.1 g/kWh
Currently not
Refrigerants
GWP25
<3500
<2500
<1890
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
Black water
Advanced
treatment
Holding tank
No discharge
Yes; MARPOL
Annex VI
Grey water
Advanced
treatment
Holding tank
No discharge
Yes; MARPOL
Annex IV
Bilge water
< 5ppm
Holding tank
No discharge
Yes; MARPOL
Annex IV
Ballast water
Comply with D-1
Comply with D-2
D-2 No
chemicals system
Yes; Ballast
Water
Convention
Garbage
Shore delivery
Waste separation
Recycling
Yes; MARPOL
Annex V
Hazardous
waste
Separation
Reduction policy
No emission
Yes; Policy
Antifouling
No TBT26 on hull
Non toxic paint
Biocide free
paint
Yes; Antifouling
Convention
Scrapping
IHM onboard
No beaching
Certified facility
Yes; Policy based
on Hong Kong
Convention
New ships/
Existing ships
20%-80% reduction
ODS: Ozone depleting substances. ODP: Ozone depleting potential
24 No standard for particulate matter (PM) emissions is given in the assessed environmental ship performance indices. ISO
8178-1 is often used in shipping.
25 GWP is a measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere relative to the effect of CO ; in this case over a
2
time interval of 100 years. No chlorofluorocarbons are allowed at any level.
26 Tributyltin (TBT)
22
23
22
Environmental Classifications of Ships
5. References
ABS (2013): American Bureau of Shipping. Setting Standards of Excellence in Marine & Offshore
Classification. Online at
[http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=t
rue&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_srvcs_environment_page]
BSR (2013): online the 11th of June 2013 [http://www.bsr.org/en/our-work/working-groups/cleancargo]
CCS (2013): China Classification Society. Rules for Green Ships, online the 17th of June 2013 at
[http://220.194.10.1/en/Rules%20and%20Research/YLB/Rules%20for%20Green%20Ships%2020
12-en.pdf]
CSI (2013): Clean Shipping Index, online the 15th of June 2013 at
[http://www.cleanshippingindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Guidance-doc-CLEANSHIPPING-INDEX-4.0-2013-01-06.pdf]
Danmarks Rederiforening, 2013, Hedegaard: MRV-forslag baner vejen for globalt system,
Danmarks Rederiforening, online 17/12/2013,
http://www.shipowners.dk/default.aspx?func=webcontent.view&id=747578
DNV (2013): Guidance for the environmental class notations clean and clean design, online the 17th
of June 2013 at [http://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/CN/CN62-1.pdf]
Green Award (2013): Green Award, online the 15th of June 2013
[http://www.greenaward.org/greenaward/69-downloads.html]
European Commission, 2013, Climate Action, Reducing emissions from the shipping sector,
European Commission, online the 17th of December 2013 at
[http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping/index_en.htm]
GL Group (2008): online the 13th of June 2013 [http://www.glgroup.com/pdf/Process_Technology_Nonstop_Clean_Energy.pdf]
IMO (2013): International Maritime Organization, online the 15th of May 2013 at
[http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Conventionfor-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx]
Lloyd’s (2013): online the 16th of May 2013 at
[http://www.lr.org/Images/LR%20SEEMP%20template%20v2.2_tcm155-240650.pdf]
http://www.lr.org/sectors/marine/Compliance/RulesandRegulations.aspx
RINA (2013): CD from RINA, Rules for the Classification of Ships. Part F Additional Class
Notations, Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention (CLEAN).
TUHH (2013): online the 15th of May 2013 at [http://www.shipefficiency.org/onTEAM/pdf/TUHH2009.pdf]
Environmental Classifications of Ships
23
6. Appendix: Selected
Classification Societies and
Environmental
Performance Indices
This appendix provides information on the assessment standards for environmental and climate
performance. The different issues have been divided into following topics: Air pollution, sea
pollution and other measures. Each organisation’s system has been screened for their
environmental- and climate classification rules and marked in the cells with a plus sign.
Four of the classification societies (Lloyd’s Register, RINA, China Classification Society and DNV)
and two environmental performance indices (Clean Shipping Index and BSR CCWG) have been
selected for detailed listing and their environmental requirements have been specified in the
following tables. Mandatory legislations according to MARPOL 73/78 have been excluded in this
study, but the measures beyond MARPOL 73/78 and other regulations have been recorded.
Furthermore, it should be noticed that generally the Clean Shipping Index is built in a way so that
the carriers that fulfil all international regulations do not get any points in the Clean Shipping Index
system, and only additional “green” measures will count. Another ship performance tool has been
developed by BSR CCWG with the intention to have a transparent system for the transport buyers.
6.1
Registro Italiano Navale (RINA)
Ships can obtain two different Green passports according to RINA’s classification rules. One called
RINA GREEN PLUS, which comply with MARPOL 73/78, while RINA GREEN STAR contains
additional measures, which are weighted in their environmental index. If each index criteria is
complied with the ship gets the Green Passport Plus/Star. For each measure the score is higher in
the environmental index. Examples of measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Gas to liquid fuels
Water injection into combustion chamber
Running with LNG
Exhaust gas treatment
NOX monitoring and recording
The specifications for RINA GREEN STAR can be found in Table 5.
6.2
Lloyd’s Register
Lloyd’s Register has environmental classification rules for ships. If a ship fulfils additional
requirements beyond the MARPOL 73/78 it can obtain an ECO notation. Requirements for
obtaining the ECO notation can be found in Table 6. Furthermore, Lloyd’s environmental
classification rules are built up with supplementary characters to the ECO notation (Lloyd’s, 2013),
which can also be found in Table 6. This makes it easy for transport buyers to figure out in which
24
Environmental Classifications of Ships
pollution areas the ships make a “green” performance, but for the uninformed it can be problematic
to know how the items are weighted and therefore problematic to compare the vessels’
environmental performance.
6.3
China Classification Society
The China Classification Society divides the ships into three environmental classes: Green Ship I,
Green Ship II and Green Ship III. The Green Ship I is the lowest class and applies to ships that fulfil
the mandatory legislation and have a basic Shipping Energy Efficiency Management Plan (called
SEEMP I). The criteria can be found in Table 7. The Green Ship II contains additional requirements
to Green Ship I including an expanded SEEMP II, while Green Ship III comprises additional items
to Green Ship II and a further expanded SEEMP III (CCS, 2013). The China Classification Society’s
requirements to the different levels of SEEMP are:
SEEMP I notation: The ship is to have a SEEMP developed in accordance with the relevant IMO
guidelines.
SEEMP II notation: In addition to compliance of the ship with the requirement of SEEMP I, a ship
energy efficiency management system must be established by the company or the operator of the
ship and certified by China Classification Society.
SEEMP III notation: In addition to compliance of the ship with the requirement of SEEMP II, the
ship must have software for real time monitoring of e.g. route optimization and hull bio fouling in
order to monitor relevant parameters affecting ship energy efficiency and/or adjust energy
efficiency measures at any time.
6.4
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
According to DNV’s environmental classification rules, ships that comply with mandatory
requirements set by MARPOL 73/78 get the certification CLEAN, while CLEAN DESIGN indicates
that the ship comply with additional measures. The additional measures are shown in Table 8.
6.5
Business for Social Responsibility Clean Cargo Working Group
(BSR CCWG)
BSR CCWG has developed a Performance Metrics Tool, which should make it easy for transport
buyers to distinguish between the vessels’ “green” performances. This scoring system consist of a
comprehensive question list which covers air pollution, sea pollution and additional environmental
issues as scrapping policy, the environmental impact through the supply chain in the company, etc.
For instance, the scoring system requests additional descriptions of the environmental Management
Program, the percentage of fleet covered by Green Passport for ship recycling, the strategy and
practice to achieve targets, indicators used to evaluate environmental performance, etc.
Furthermore, the CO2, NOX and SOX emissions according to supply-chain are evaluated (BSR,
2013). Answering the questions gives a score calculated by the Metric Tool, which is based on a
program in excel. Some of the questions require a simple “yes” or “no”, other questions require a
description, while some items require a calculation. How the description issues are weighted in the
system is not clarified but the final score makes it transparent for transport buyers to differentiate
between the vessels environmental performance. In Table 9 the most relevant items used in the
CCWG tool are shown.
Environmental Classifications of Ships
25
6.6
Clean Shipping Index
The Clean Shipping Index is built up to give a vessel score when additional measures beyond the
mandatory convention are performed. The pollution elements weighted and used in the Clean
Shipping Index can be found in Table 10. Here the quantitative measures are listed:
For CO2 improvement the Energy Efficiency Operation Index is calculated for existing ships and
should be more than 40% lower than for the reference ship. For container ships the CO2 emissions
are calculated according to the CCWG. NOX emission reduction can give a score if the vessel
complies with Tier III requirements. SOX emission reduction gives a score if fuel quality is under
0.1% S. Use of LNG or biogas will give a zero emission scenario, and thus the highest score.
Furthermore, the change from diesel/heavy fuel oil to LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), LNG or biogas
will also reduce the PM formation. It is required for container and cargo vessels that refrigerants
substances may not have an ozone depleting potential (i.e. ODP=0) and that substances like HFCs
should have a GWP not exceeding 3500. The score will be even higher when the used substances
have a GWP<1850. Regarding bilge water a score is obtained when there is an active treatment and
the oil in outgoing water is under 5ppm with an emission control box in place. Ballast water
exchange is not optimal for the environment and thus provides a reduction in the Clean Shipping
Index scoring system. To obtain a full score a Ballast Water Management system that has received
Type Approval Certification following Final Approval by IMO should be implemented (Clean
Shipping Index, 2013).
A number of other classification societies, organisations and public indices are briefly described
below but not into further details.
6.7
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
ABS has an environmental classification standard that distinguishes between ENVIRO and
ENVIRO+ notation (ABS, 2013). ENVIRO notation is based on compliance with the international
conventions, while ENVIRO+ notation includes additional criteria for environmental protection
related to design characteristics, management and support systems, sea discharges and air
emissions. The specifications are not significantly different from other class systems and are not
described into further details in this report.
6.8
Environmental Ship Index
The Environmental Ship Index identifies seagoing ships that perform better in reducing air
emissions than required by the current emission standards of the IMO. The Environmental Ship
Index evaluates the amount of NOX and SOX that is released by a ship and includes a reporting
scheme on the greenhouse gas emission of the ship. It gives an indication of the environmental
performance of ocean going vessels and assist in identifying cleaner ships in a general way while
providing a total score based on each of its constituent parts separately. The Environmental Ship
Index is an adaptable index where the weighting of the scores between the different constituents of
the formula might change and the evaluation of the performance can be adjusted to be more in line
with constituents as they are added and existing ones deleted. Deletions will be made if a measure
has proven to be effective and the behavioural change has become widespread. Disadvantage: Due
to the adaptability and adjustment of the index, the total score will not be comparable for the same
ship from year to year, since improvement calculations is not possible. Therefore, the
Environmental Ship Index is only comparable between ships within the same year.
6.9
IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
IMO has developed the EEDI as a technical measure to successively improve a ship’s energy
efficiency. The index indicates the specific CO2 emission per cargo capacity and distance sailed. This
26
Environmental Classifications of Ships
tool has been created for improvement in CO2 reduction. The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI
Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, scheduled to enter into force on 1
January 2013, add a new chapter to Annex VI, where the EEDI is made mandatory for new ships..
EEDI, which is measured in g CO2 per ton-miles, requires step-wise improvements to the energy
efficiency of new build ships, starting at 10% reduction in CO2 per tonne-mile from 2015, increasing
to 20% and 30% in 2020 and 2025, respectively.
6.10
IMO’s Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan and Energy
Efficiency Operational Indicator (SEEMP)
The SEEMP is an operational measure that establishes a mechanism to improve the energy
efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective manner. The SEEMP also provides an approach for shipping
companies to manage ship and fleet efficiency performance over time using, for example, the
Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator as a monitoring tool. The guidance on the development of
the SEEMP for new and existing ships incorporates best practices for fuel-efficient ship operation,
as well as guidelines for voluntary use of the Energy Efficiency Operation Index for new and existing
ships (MEPC.1/Circ.684). The Energy Efficiency Operation Index enables operators to measure the
fuel efficiency of a ship in operation and to gauge the effect of any changes in operation, e.g.
improved voyage planning or more frequent propeller cleaning, or introduction of technical
measures such as waste heat recovery systems or a new propeller. The SEEMP urges the ship owner
and operator at each stage of the plan to consider new technologies and practices when seeking to
optimise the performance of the ship (IMO, 2013). SEEMP is mandatory for ships over 400 GT
from the 1st of January 2013 (Lloyd’s, 2013).
Environmental Classifications of Ships
27
TABLE 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION RULES FROM RINA BEYOND MANDATORY
REQUIREMENTS.
Pollution area
Additional measures which have impact on the Environmental
Index in RINA
Air pollution
CO2
Gas to liquids, Blending fossil fuel with second-generation bio-fuels, Duelfuel engines running with LNG, CO2 emissions monitoring and recording
SOX
Gas to liquids, Blending fossil fuel with second-generation bio-fuels, Dualfuel engines running with LNG, SOX emission monitoring and recording
NOX
Gas to liquid, Fossil fuel pre-treatment, (e.g. water injection) Dual -fuel
engines running with LNG, NOX emissions monitoring and recording
PM
Gas to liquids, Fuel pre-treatment, Lower PM emission achieved by
modifications in prime movers that do not increase other pollutants and
GHGs emissions, Dual-fuel engines running with LNG
ODS
Restrictions in the use of GWP (global warming pot.) substances
GHG
Non fossil fuels (e.g. Sails, fuel cells, etc.), Second generation of bio-fuels
partially or totally used on board, Cold ironing, Tool to monitoring and
recording fuel supplies and consumption, Computerized system to monitor
fuel consumption, Supporting tool to assist the Master in keeping most
efficient sailing draft and trim
Sea pollution
Black Water
Advanced treatment plant as per Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Title XIV (33 CFR Part 159 Subpart E),
High level alarm in manned position
Grey Water
Advanced treatment plant as per Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Title XIV (33 CFR Part 159 Subpart E), Grey water record
book, Holding tank
Bilge water
High level alarm in manned position, Dry bilge concept, Magnetic coupling
on oil pumps, Biodegradable and low aquatic toxicity lube oil, Retention on
board, Bilge water treatment with alarm, automatic stop and recorder
Ballast water
Using Ballast water exchange
Discharge of water
Limitation of hot water discharge: such as not to increase by more than 2oC
in mixing zone
Garbage
Management plan for hazardous wastes: lamp bulbs, batteries, printer
cartridges etc.,
Recycling of plastic, aluminium, glass, paper-cardboard
Other
Ship recycling
Res. MEPC.179(59)
Res. A.962(23)
28
Environmental Classifications of Ships
TABLE 6: ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION RULES FROM LLOYD’S REGISTER BEYOND
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS.
Pollution area
ECO notation
Supplementary characters to the
ECO notation
Air pollution
CO2
EEDI: submitted and approved by LR,
Energy Efficiency Operation Index: in
acc. With IMO guidelines
NOX
Comply with MARPOL Annex
VI
NOX-1: <80% of Tier I NOX emission
limits
NOX-2: <80% of Tier II NOX emission
limits
NOX-3: meets the Tier III emission limits
SOX
S content in Oil fuel < 3.0%
m/m
DIST: SOX, fuel sulfur content less than
0.10% m/m
CFC
Prohibited
HCFCs
In new prohibited, ODP=0,
GWP<1950
Refrigerants
Alarm system, and leakage
<10-3%
R: Refrigeration systems, natural
substances are to be used as the
refrigerants in all main r. Systems (cargo
systems, provision rooms and air
conditioning)
VOC
VOC Management Plan
VECS: Vapor emission control systems in
acc with IMO Standards for Vapor
Emission Control Systems
Sea pollution
Black water
Treatment system in
accordance with MEPC Res.
159(55)
Bilge
MARPOL, Annex I, <15 ppm
alarm
OW: Oily Bilge water, discharge ashore
Oil-in-water
Content in water discharge 15
ppm
TC: Enhanced tank cleaning
Ballast water
Ballast water management
plan
In accordance with regulation
B1 of the International
Convention for the Control
and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments.
BWT: if treatment system in acc. With
MEPC 174(58)
Garbage
Management plan,
IMO MEPC Res. 71(38)
TBT
Prohibited
A: Anti-fouling system is to be nonbiocidal
Environmental Classifications of Ships
29
Noxious liquid
substances
CRM: Cargo Residue minimization
GW: Grey Water, treatment plant
installed and/or tank for discharge
ashore
Other
SEEMP
SEEMP in accordance with the
relevant IMO Guidelines
Scrapping Policy
IHMs should be in compliance with
Regulation 5 of the Hong Kong
International Convention for the Safe
and Environmentally sound Recycling of
Ships
TABLE 7: ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION RULES FROM CHINA CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY BEYOND
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS.
Additional measures which have impact on the CSI Index
Pollution
area
Green Ship I
Green Ship II
Green Ship III
Air pollution
SOX
-
Not to exceed 3.0%
Not to exceed 0.5%
-
In SECAs not to exceed
1.0%
In SECAs 0.1%
NOX
-
-
Tier III
ODS
-
-
HCFCs prohibited
Sea pollution
Black water
Sewage Pollution
Prevention Certificate
Effective operational
procedure for sewage
treatment
Sewage treatment system
in acc. With res.
MEPC.159(55)
Holding tank
Alarms
Sewage discharge
recording book
Grey water
Bilge Water
30
Holding tank
Sewage treatment system
Alarm
or discharged more than 12
nautical miles from land
Alarm and auto stop
when oil content exceeds
15ppm
Not to exceed 5ppm
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Bilge water treatment system,
IMO MEPC.1/Circ.642
Ballast
water
BWM convention
Requirements adopted by
res. MEPC.149(55)
BWM Certificate
Res. MEPC.140(54)
Garbage
Antifouling
BWM system in acc. with res.
MEPC.174(58)
Procedures for garbage
documented
Anti Fouling Systems
convention
without organotin compounds
(act as biocides)
Anti-fouling
Certificate
Chemicals
Oil
Oil pollution
Prevention Certificate
Harmful
substances
carried by
sea in
packaged
form
Certificate for
Carriage of Noxious
Liquid Substances
Refrigeratin
g systems
Drainage system for
Noxious liquid
substances
Isolated
Ozone depletion potential is
to be zero
GWP less than 2000
Liquid receiver
Annual refrigerant
leakage rate is to be less
than 10% of its total
charge
Alarm system
Other
SEEMP
SEEMP (I)
Scrapping
policy
Hong Kong
Convention
SEEMP (II)
SEEMP (III)
Environmental Classifications of Ships
31
TABLE 8: ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION RULES BY DNV BEYOND THE MARPOL 73/78.
Pollution area
Additional measures to obtain CLEAN DESIGN
Air
SOX
Max. 2.5% in fuel oil carried on board
As alternative: use of an electrical shore connection
ODP/GWP
GWP < 1890, and ODP=0. No chloroflourocarbons (CFCs and HCFCs)
allowed.
Incinerators
Installed, unless enough capacity for 100% delivery to shore
Sea pollution
Bilge water
Bilge holding tank with facilities for delivery ashore.
Labels/colour codes in order to identify the different piping systems
Alarm, set to 5ppm
Bilge water separator with automatic stopping device
Garbage
Vessel shall be equipped and arranged for sorting, collecting, minimizing
and storing garbage prior to incineration or delivery to shore.
Separated into following categories: recyclable, non-recyclable waste,
food waste, hazardous waste
Only for tankers
VOC (cargo
evaporation)
32
Vapor control systems CFR 46 Part 39
Environmental Classifications of Ships
TABLE 9: SELECTED ELEMENTS FROM THE CCWG ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SYSTEM.
Pollution Area
Measure
Air pollution
CO2
Calculated, Vessel speed reduction, weather routing, hull and propeller
polishing/hull resistance reduction, optimal rudder adjustment
Optimal trim, optimized vessel utilization
Optimized vessel load through freight consolidation
Ballast water reduction measures for a better CO2 / TEU ratio
Waste heat recovery systems
Shaft generators
Electronic engine controls
High pressure fuel injection systems
NOX
Calculated
Slide valve technologies
Common rail technology
Electronic engine controls
Water-based technologies
After treatment technologies (e.g. SCR)
SOX
Measured S content in fossil fuel
Description of program to reduce SOx emissions
Alternative energy: wind,
solar, etc.
Noticed
Sea pollution
Oily discharge
Score depend on percentage.
Ballast water
Treatment, Minimization,
Mid-ocean ballast water exchange when required by regulations
Hull
Which biocide used, Which coating used
Waste
"No-garbage-over-board" policy, No-incineration policy, Discharge
food waste only at mid ocean, e.g. >25 nm off-shore, Waste disposal
onboard ship/at ports
Other
Environmental policy
Yes/no (if yes: Description)
Annual environmental
performance report
Yes/no (if yes: Description)
Environmental
Management System
Yes/no (if yes, is it certified?) (e.g. ISO 14001)
Environmental Classifications of Ships
33
All certificates
Supplied, and each weighted
Environmental shortterm (annual) and longterm goals
Description
Monitoring of
environmental
performance
Description
Recycling policy
Yes/no (if yes: Description)
Company Energy
Efficiency Management
Plan
Description
Crew awareness
In environmental policy, targets and procedures.
Container management
Operate reefers with low energy consumption potential
Use of environmentally friendly technologies for application of paint
Verification of legally and sustainable wood used for container floors.
Monitored facilities
Paper consumption
Electricity consumption
Water consumption
34
Environmental Classifications of Ships
TABLE 10: MEASURES IN CLEAN SHIPPING INDEX THAT IMPACTS THE VESSEL SCORE.
Pollution
area
Measures which have impact on the CSI Index
Air pollution
CO2
Energy Efficiency Operation Index compared with a similar reference ship: >40%
below reference
Reduction goal: CCWG: >40% below reference
For container ships: CO2 emissions calc. acc. to CCWG
NOX
Calculation of NOX emissions per transport work in grams/tonne-km.
NOX emissions calculated in grams/TEU-km, Tier III (80% reduction)
SOX
Total yearly average of sulphur in all fuel used as percentage by weight: Quality up
to < 0.1% S. SOX emissions in grams/TEU-km. Fuel S content < 2.5 % as total
yearly average.
PM
Connected to the SOX emissions.
Refrigerants
Use of ODP substances should have ODP =0
Use of GWP substances should have GWP <3,500 or even <1,850
Sea pollution
Black water
Scoring based on how treatment is in Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs)
No Sewage discharge in PSSAs
Sludge oil
handling
No incinerator on board, Documented disposal of sludge oil to treatment on
shore.
Bilge water
Active treatment equipment has to be installed, calibrated and documented
emission of <5ppm oil in the disposed bilge water
Installation of emission control box
Ballast water
Ballast water exchange (reduced score)
BW Management systems which received Type Approval Certification following
Final Approval by IMO (full score)
Garbage
handling
No incinerator on board, no waste over board, separate garbage for handling for
reuse, recycling and disposal.
Antifouling
Using SPC (self-polishing coating)
Non-toxic coating, accepted according to EU Biocide Directive 98/8/EG Annex 1
(10)
Chemicals
Stern tube oils
Biodegradable oil according to ISO 9439(11), ISO 10708 or ISO 9408 (13)
External
hydraulic
fluids
Biodegradable fluids, Electrical power instead of hydraulic power, External
hydraulic power capped so leakage will not reach the sea
Environmental Classifications of Ships
35
Gear oil for
thruster or
propellers
Biodegradable oil
Boiler/cooling water
treatment
Avoiding the use of chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to
reproduction, according to the EU Dangerous Substance Directive (14), Avoiding
products classified as sensitizing, toxic or dangerous for the environment
according to the DSD directive (exclusion of nitrite)
Cleaning
agents
Avoiding the use of chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to
reproduction, according to the EU Dangerous Substance Directive (14). Avoiding
detergents classified as dangerous for the environment according to the DSD
directive. Detergents, surfactants that disturb the installed bilge water treatment
should be avoided.
Other
Scrapping
policy
Breaking facility may not be located on intertidal coastal zone. They have to carry
an updated IHM on board. They sign a Covenant with the new owner when selling
the ship
Crew
awareness
Documented education for all crew on board with special emphasis on engine
room personnel and handling of heavy fuel oil
36
Environmental Classifications of Ships
Environmental Classification of ships
The report provides an overview of the existing mechanisms to classify ships with respect to their
environmental and climate performance. Further the reports accesses the applicability of the systems for
ports, shipping companies and cargo owners and discusses a proposal for a set of criteria, which may also
be applicable globally.
Strandgade 29
1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Tel.: (+45) 72 54 40 00
www.mst.dk